Skip to comments.Ancient Arctic camel a curious conundrum
Posted on 03/05/2013 3:17:09 PM PST by Beowulf9
OTTAWA Ancient, mummified camel bones dug from the tundra confirm that the animals now synonymous with the arid sands of Arabia actually developed in subfreezing forests in what is now Canada's High Arctic, a scientist said Tuesday.
About 3.5 million years ago, Strathcona Fiord on Ellesmere Island's west-central coast would have looked more like a northern forest than an Arctic landscape, said paleobotanist Natalia Rybczynski of the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
|GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach|
Thanks Squawk 8888 for the ping (pretty message btw), looks like a multi-list topic, and thanks Beowulf9 for posting it.
Generations from now, researchers will be uncovering the mummified remains of electric vehicles that also died there.
I guess the ancient Eskimos may have worried about having a dry hump?
The camels in the article were from 3.5 million years ago, the Younger Dryas occurred around 12,000 years ago. There are apparently flash frozen mammoths caused by that event.
SC time to post the Firestone, et al. book.
The Cycle of Cosmic Catastrophes:
Flood, Fire, and Famine
in the History of Civilization
by Richard Firestone,
Allen West, and
The blind see only what they want to see.
Is that supposed to be some kind of rebuttal?
It is indeed a rebuttal.
Beware accepting stodgy, biased professionals who find a theory they like and then deny any new evidence. They (almost all) keep official definitions and explanations.
New evidence of earth fluctuation has been presented and well documented HOWEVER the majority of said professionals CLING to their old theories.
If you accept the popular theories you are most likely well outside of enlightened and new discoveries just like the majority of humanity.
I understand and accept that you cling to (outdated science) that most people BELIEVE only what they learned early in life and fail to incorporate new evidence which is contradictory.
It make you feel safe but you are still closed minded.
You apparently don’t understand how science works. And what the heck is “earth fluctuation”? I’d be interested to read some of the “well documented” evidence that discusses this phenomena.